Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] INactivism - $90B farm welfare

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <activism98201@verizon.net>
  • To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] INactivism - $90B farm welfare
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:57:41 -0500 (CDT)

I've come to the position that rather than promote NEW subsidies that we've
got to curtail existing ones, that we've got to pull the plug on the mess of
subsidies that we've got going. Until we do this there's no way we're going
to be able to identify what does or doesn't work.

As long as the feed gates are open the big conglomerates are going to make
sure that they crowd out all the small folk. Putting more feed in there will
ONLY mean MORE for the conglomerates.


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


=====================
From: TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net>
Date: 2007/07/20 Fri AM 11:57:54 CDT
To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [Livingontheland] INactivism - $90B farm welfare


Thanks again, Ken. BUT there are those who lobby for more of the federal
pie to come to small farm operations and sustainable growers. And they wait
for it and pin their hopes on it instead of beginning sustainable practices
where they are, right now. IMHO, fighting over who gets the tax money is
the wrong strategy. We won't get it and we won't stop the Agribusiness
Leviathan until enough people grow their own and buy local, and consumer
demand falls and cripples the mega-farms and middlemen. Lobbying and
protest are up against corrupt billion$. What little progress they think
they've made politically comes with very long strings attached, and with
money comes control. Control of our health and livelihoods.

You could call this INactivism - refusing to support an unsustainable
system we don't believe in. And consumer demand is the lifeblood of the
system. It should die the death of a thousand cuts. Do we really want all
the contaminated crap from China, or ADM or Cargill? The beauty of
INactivism is we don't need mass protests, votes, or foundation grants to
do it. We don't need anybody's permission, licenses or permits. We just
need to get growing.

This doesn't sound glamorous; it doesn't give anybody a chance to head some
movement and be a big shot or plead for donations from a deep leather chair
behind a big desk. But pulling my own carrots and garlic brings a strange
sense of satisfaction - the simple pleasure of knowing you can actually
feed yourself from the land you live on. And eat healtier for it. And save
the cost of a fitness club ... do people really pay some company - some
club - to let them exercise???

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 7/20/2007 at 7:06 AM Ken Hargesheimer wrote:

>Each year, the U.S. government spends about $90 billion to ensure that
>its citizens have cheap food. This leads us to ask, “Who should get the
>$90 billion?
>
> This Saturday at 9am Pacific, the Food Chain with Michael Olson hosts
> John Keeling from the National Potato Council and Larry Mitchell from
>the American Corn Growers Association for a conversation about the 2007
>Farm Bill.
>
> Log on www.metrofarm.com to listen on your radio, computer or IPOD.
>
> Topics include why governments subsidize agriculture; why 70% of U.S.
>subsidies go to 10% of the country’s farmers; and which farmers should
get
>the money.
>
> Question of the Week: Who should get our $90 billion?
>
>http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index.php gives the names of farmers and
>corporations and how much welfare they received.
>
> Ken Hargesheimer



_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page